European Monarchs used absolute monarchy to gain full control over their people. The divine right theory instilled the idea that those who were not under a monarchical government were disobeying God’s command. The idea, as a result, inculcated fear amongst the people. The effects differed depending on how the monarch used their power.
The excerpt in Document 1 suggests that the said prince pushed fear only to establish law and order to protect the innocent. The prince wanted to scare the “wicked men” who could do harm to the innocent. The importance of law that of an absolute monarchy is described in the excerpt from Leviathan. As described, in the text, the only way to achieve peace is to make men give up their wants because in the end, greed will consume them.
Monarchs like King James on the other hand, abused his power. King James stated to Parliament and the world, that monarchs are equal to God himself and what they say goes. Bishop Bossuet describes this as “profane” and “arrogant” because King James was disgracing the divine right theory. A monarch’s divine right was said to have come from God himself. Sitting on God’s throne and decreeing laws contrary to Him was ludicrous to the Bishop.
…show more content…
Monarchs like King Louis XIV used their absolute power for the interest of the people first.
He believed that if he served his people, they would serve him back. With this idea, he was able to have his subjects construct the massive Palace at Versailles. In Spain, a monarch, King Philip, valued his people stating that the Spaniards were the most dominant people at the time. He also evaded wars and sought out peace, avoided enterprises and thought of more practical solutions, and valued his subjects more than his predecessor. People to treated him with deference and respect as result and was even given the title the “Catholic
King.” The effects of absolute monarchy and divine right was mixed. Those who used their absolute power and divine right to instill fear were able to keep law and order. However, some monarchs, like King James, were criticized by the clergy for abusing his power by which he was said to had received from God himself. Monarchs like King Louis and Philip on the contrary, were highly respected because they used their power to put their people first. The massive and luxurious Palace at Versailles was built under King Louis’ rule. By ruling humbly, King Philip is now remembered, even after hundreds of years, as a prudent monarch.
On the other hand, King Philip II was a more careful and simple king. The Escorial was more compact and closed in unlike the Versailles. Like the Versailles, the Escorial demonstrated Philip II ideals of religious issues. In the center of the palace, where Philip II would spend most of his time, was the church and monastery. Philip II considered himself King of Spain second and Catholic first. He preferred to sit in the monastery to look at historical records rather than Louis XIV’s conception of a king. Both palaces were Catholic but religion had a bigger role at the Escorial Palace. Also at the Escorial palace you saw more military surrounding it as for the Versailles it wasn’t as guarded.
Machiavelli’s advice to a prince who wanted to hold power is that they have to instill fear into the people. He believes fear is important because it restrains men, as they fear being punished. Love will never help you hold power because it attaches people to promises. Machiavelli believes that since humans are wicked, they will break these promises whenever their interests is at stake. Men will devote everything to you if you serve their interests, but as soon as you need help, they turn on you. Therefore, creating fear in them is the perfect strategy. I feel like Machiavelli is being sarcastic and did this to get attention. He knew his way of thinking was different and would get the attention of the people.
According to the text book, an absolute monarch is a king or queen who has unlimited power and seeks to control all aspects of society (McDougall little, 1045). In more simple terms, it is a ruler who can do just about anything without having to get permission from anyone, or having to worry about the repercussions. This was a trend that started in the 1600’s by European leaders who were rich, and didn’t like to be told what to do. These conflicts arose with the States-General in France, or Parliament in England who had substantial control. The first countries to have absolute rulers were the traditionally strong countries, such as England, Spain, and of course Louis XIV’s France.
The role of the king to the public during the reigns of Louis XIV of France and Philip II of Spain were not predetermined, so each king created for himself what he thought monarchy ought to be. Louis XIV and Philip II were both absolutists, and believed that they should be the supreme rulers of France and Spain, respectively. However, Louis XIV did not want to be a national symbol serving no legitimate purpose. He wished to control the military, economy, foreign affairs, and the administration of the kingdom and of justice. He believed that the king of France should be the best that France has to offer- being served by even the most powerful lords of France. Conversely, Philip II thought of himself as Catholic first, and king of Spain second. Opposite to Louis XIV, Philip II preferred to sit in the Escorial and pray, pour over records, and live more as a monk than as Louis XIV’s conception of a king. Philip II never wanted to take much of an active part in the administration of his kingdom, except for the times when he wanted to use some of his various powers. However, after he had used it for a while (waging war, raising taxes, etceteras) he would let it lay dormant and return to his documents. Nor did Philip II ever wish to control most of the Spanish economy. The parts that he did control were ones that directly affected himself or his revenues, so vital in order to keep his army of immense proportions.
In today’s world, there are several types of governments that control their countries. There are democracies, dictatorships, republics, monarchies etc. Absolute monarchy was a very common form of government centuries ago. Throughout this time period, many leaders, dictators, monarchs made mistakes that the government looks at today. The abuse and misuse of power by absolute monarchs inexorably led to the rise of modern democracy. This is shown through leaders abusing their powers as absolute monarchs, the unreliability of monarchy, and corrupt governments.
The main point that he is trying to get across is the question, “Is it better to be feared rather than loved?” and he explains very thoroughly in The prince his thoughts and views on this question and he says that “it is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails” (The Prince: Machiavelli). He also covers the topics of religion, morality, power, and of course politics.
Boussuet says, “Without the absolute authority the king could neither do good nor repress evil. It is necessary that his power be such that no one can hope to escape him, and finally, the only protection of individuals against the public authority should be their innocence” (400). He also focuses
a government in which all power belongs to one person : the rule or authority of a tyrant
During this time France was ruled by a series of absolutist rulers such as Richelieu an appointed regent who took Louis XIII place until he was old enough to be king, and Mazariń who was Louis XIV appointed regent until he came of age. Amidst the constant changing of laws and war during these kings reign, religious tension between the Huguenots and the Catholics was starting to build back up, even after Henry IV wrote the Edict of Nantes, which gave Hugenotten followers the right to practice their religion without any prosecution, as well as being able to fortify their cities. During the reign of Louis XIV, tension between the monarchy and the nobility was at an all-time high; Nobles of the robe and Nobles of the sword were used as a ploy
The aim of absolute monarchy was to provide ‘stability, prosperity, and order’ for our territories (458). The way Louis XIV set forth to accomplish this was to claim complete sovereignty, to make laws, sanction justice, declare wars, and implement taxes on its subjects. This was all done without the approval of any government or Parliament, as monarchs were to govern ‘by divine right, just as fathers ruled their households’ (458). In Bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet’s Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture, he described that absolution was one of the four characteristics imperative to royal authority, “Without this absolute authority, he can do neither good nor suppress evil; his power must be such that no one can hope to escape him” (460). This was epitomized when Louis XIV sought to control the legal system as well as the funding of the financial resources through a centralized bureaucracy for the monarchy.
European monarchs from the Early Modern Era were indeed justified in their decision to wield complete power over everyone else. Absolute monarchs have proven time and time again that their ruling style greatly benefits their people if done correctly. While many people in today’s society would argue that having an absolute ruler would be an unwise decision, you must take in consideration the fact that they have a bias opinion based of their current government. Rulers like Catherine the Great and Maria Theresa are known for doing great things and that further proves the advantages of establishing a monarchy. Even though absolute rulers are rare now, that doesn’t change the fact that it is every efficient.
People like King James I thought that the kings had the same power of God (James I). King James believed that that the kings could judge anyone and do anything without being held accountable for it. Just like God, they could create and destroy anything, they could kill or grant life to anyone. If they are not followed, if the members of the government do not follow their leaders’ orders, then they are worthy of death (Bossuet). The monarchs believed that whatever they did was right. They did not treat people with the respect they deserved. People at that time did not have the right to change anything in the government. Louis XIV made it possible for some of the nobles to have a voice in the government by building the Palace of Versailles where he would be able to control more of the
Fear is a major theme in Nicolo Machiavelli’s book, The Prince. One of Machiavelli's famous quote in his book is that, “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both” (Machiavelli, pg.79). Machiavelli is saying that fear is a useful tool for rulers to rule over their people. Machiavelli thinks fear can not be used for the ruler’s own sake but for the people. A similar example is like the executive privilege power that the president of the United States have but not use because it would be political suicide. The executive privilege allows the president not to release information to Congress if it’s in the nation’s best interest not his (president) own. Dictators in the past could have misinterpret the quote (stated above) in Machiavelli’s book, The Prince to rule their people according their (dictators) own
This historical study will define the absolute monarchy as it was defied through the French government in the 17th century. The term ‘absolute” is defined I the monarchy through the absolute control over the people through the king and the royal family. All matters of civic, financial, and political governance was controlled through the king’s sole power as the monarchical ruler of the French people. In France, Louis XIII is an important example of the absolute monarchy, which controlled all facts of military and economic power through a single ruler. Udder Louis XIII’s reign, the consolidation of power away from the Edicts of Nantes to dominant local politics and sovereignty in Europe. These forms of absolute power define the role of the monarch in controlling the people without the influence of the nobility or a parliament in the decision making process. In essence, the various aspects of absolute monarchy will be defined win the example of , Louis XIII as the sole sovereign of his people during the 17th century.
The challenges to the power of the Monarch was by the reign of James I (1603-25) the monarch was faced with an increasing effective Parliament, culminating in the temporary abolition of the monarchy in (1625). Consequently, the monarchy’s powers were eroded by both revolution and by legal challenges, which included the case of Proclamations (1611) , the monarchy could not change the law by proclamation. The law of the land, which required that the law be made by Parliament, limited the prerogative. In the case of Prohibitions Del Roy (1607) the Monarch had no right to act as a judge, and in the case of the Ship Money Case (1637), although th...